netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/9] strict user copy checks on x86

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4DDC232F.7080005@codeaurora.org>
Date:	Tue, 24 May 2011 14:29:19 -0700
From:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Intel Linux Wireless <ilw@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] strict user copy checks on x86_64

Hi Andrew,

(I don't know who to pick on sorry)

On 05/12/2011 04:50 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> It turns out that strict user copy checks (also known as
> CONFIG_DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS) isn't actually implemented
> on x86_64 and thus we aren't catching potential security holes
> at compile time.
>
> This series adds support for strict user copy checks on x86_64
> and silences all the benign warnings in the x86_64 allyesconfig.
>
> The final patch consolidates the config option as its duplicated
> across mutliple arches. I don't know what tree this series should
> go through so I tried to send the individual driver patches to the
> respective maintainers.
>
> Stephen Boyd (9):
>   iwlegacy: Silence DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS=y warning
>   iwlwifi: Silence DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS=y warning
>   [SCSI] lpfc: Silence DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS=y warning
>   debugfs: Silence DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS=y warning
>   kprobes: Silence DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS=y warning
>   Bluetooth: Silence DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS=y warning
>   ASoC: Silence DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS=y warning
>   x86: Implement strict user copy checks for x86_64
>   Consolidate CONFIG_DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECKS

It looks like 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 got picked up. Should I resend the left
over patches with appropriate acked-bys and tags? Would it be
appropriate to push this through your tree?

-- 
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html